Abstract [en]

Within EU an internal market is maintained where free movement of goods, people, ser-vices and capital are ensured. These freedoms mean that all discrimination on grounds of nationality in domestic laws should be abolished, which is a result of EU’s superiority which cannot be overridden by domestic law.

If a law seems limiting of any of these freedoms, the rules must be justified or changed. The limitation can be justified by either the exceptions enacted in the Treaty or by the prin-ciple of rule of reason.

The Swedish rules of exit-taxation have during the last years been developed after EU law practice. In November last year the Court of Justice of the European Union announced a preliminary ruling which changed the conditions for justifications of restrictions on the freedom of establishment. On January first this year, the domestic rules of granting of de-ferment of the payment of the exit-tax were renewed. The question now is whether the Swedish exit-taxation is compatible with the freedom of establishment.

In my opinion the Swedish exit-taxation can have a restricting effect for the use of the freedom of establishment. This is because there is an inconsistency on how companies are taxed, depending on whether they move or keep their habitual residence in Sweden. The restriction may however be justified by the principle rule of reason by the purpose of en-suring the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the Member States, in accor-dance with the principle of fiscal territoriality. Generally I cannot consider otherwise than that the legislation also is proportionate to that purpose, but there are situations when the taxpayer is required to provide a bank guarantee to secure the payment of the tax, which I think is a more stringent requirement on the taxpayer than can be justified.